| Literature DB >> 32878216 |
Agata Wawrzyniak1, Joanna Myszkowska-Ryciak2, Anna Harton2, Ewa Lange2, Wacław Laskowski3, Jadwiga Hamulka1, Danuta Gajewska2.
Abstract
The aims of the study were to determine the socio-demographic factors that may affect body weight dissatisfaction and to analyze the relationship between eating habits and dissatisfaction with body weight among a national random sample of Polish adolescents aged 13-19 years. Data on gender, age, level of education, body weight status, screen time, body weight satisfaction and selected nutritional behaviors were collected using a questionnaire. Body mass status was assessed based on weight and height measurements. A total of 14,044 students from 207 schools participated in the study. A significant effect of gender, age, level of education, body weight status and screen time status on the participants' dissatisfaction with the body weight was observed. The greater prevalence of body weight satisfaction was observed among boys, younger subjects, secondary school students, adolescents with normal body weight status and those with screen time up to 2 h. Whereas girls, older study participants (17-19 years old), overweight/obese adolescents and subjects with screen time over 4 h were more often dissatisfied with body weight. Furthermore, it has been shown that participants dissatisfied with their body weight less often met dietary recommendations. These findings can help dietitians, nutritionists and healthcare professionals to provide age-specific and gender-specific nutrition strategies to promote healthy lifestyle among school-going adolescents.Entities:
Keywords: adolescents; dietary behaviors; dissatisfaction with body weight; socio-demographic factors
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32878216 PMCID: PMC7551787 DOI: 10.3390/nu12092658
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Characteristics of the study group (n = 14,044) depending on satisfaction (SBW) or dissatisfaction (DBW) with body weight and the odds ratio (OR) for DBW depending on analyzed factors.
| Factor | Total | SBW | DBW | OR for DBW | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| girls | 53.8 | 43.4 | 64.1 | *** | 2.321 (2.169–2.484) *** |
| boys | 46.2 | 56.6 | 35.9 | 0.431 (0.403–0.461) *** | |
|
| |||||
| ≤14 | 22.4 | 25.2 | 19.7 | *** | 0.736 (0.680–0.797) *** |
| 15 | 14.3 | 14.9 | 13.8 | 0.913 (0.831–1.004) | |
| 16 | 17 | 16.7 | 17.2 | 1.036 (0.948–1.131) | |
| 17 | 19.8 | 18.3 | 21.3 | 1.205 (1.109–1.309) *** | |
| ≥18 | 26.5 | 24.9 | 28 | 1.165 (1.081–1.256) *** | |
|
| |||||
| secondary | 42.1 | 45.5 | 38.7 | *** | 0.758 (0.709–0.811) *** |
| upper secondary | 57.9 | 54.5 | 61.3 | 1.319 (1.233–1.411) *** | |
|
| |||||
| underweight | 5.1 | 5.2 | 4.9 | *** | 0.943 (0.811–1.096) |
| normal | 76.7 | 84 | 69.5 | 0.444 (0.399–0.469) *** | |
| overweight | 11.6 | 8.4 | 14.8 | 1.893 (1.701–2.107) *** | |
| obese | 6.6 | 2.4 | 10.8 | 4.983 (4.199–5.915) *** | |
|
| |||||
| 0–2 | 41.4 | 42.8 | 39.9 | *** | 0.887 (0.829–0.948) *** |
| >2–4 | 42.5 | 42.6 | 42.5 | 0.997 (0.932–1.066) | |
| >4 | 16.1 | 14.6 | 17.6 | 1.249 (1.141–1.368) *** |
*** p ≤ 0.001—significant differences between SBW or DBW, the Pearson’s chi-square test or the Wald test (OR values).
Nutritional behaviors of the individuals (n = 14,044) depending on satisfaction (SBW) or dissatisfaction (DBW) with body weight and the logistic regression analyses for the association of SBW or DBW with nutritional behaviors.
| Factor | SBW | DBW | OR for SBW | OR for DBW |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| underweight | 4.9 | 5.2 | 0.807 (0.649–1.004) | 1.120 (0.899–1.396) |
| normal | 84.6 | 70.3 | 1 | 1 |
| overweight | 8.2 | 14 | 0.896 (0.751–1.070) | 0.867 (0.759–0.992) * |
| obese | 2.3 | 10.5 | 0.850 (0.618–1.169) | 0.906 (0.778–1.056) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| underweight | 5 | 3.9 | 0.925 (0.747–1.146) | 0.665 (0.534–0.828) *** |
| normal | 83.9 | 67.6 | 1 | 1 |
| overweight | 8.6 | 16 | 1.069 (0.900–1.271) | 1.298 (1.132–1.488) *** |
| obese | 2.5 | 12.5 | 1.192 (0.868–1.638) | 1.551 (1.322–1.820) *** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| underweight | 5.4 | 4.6 | 1.075 (0.870–1.329) | 0.921 (0.739–1.147) |
| normal | 83.6 | 68.3 | 1 | 1 |
| overweight | 8.5 | 15.6 | 1.032 (0.871–1.223) | 1.144 (1.001–1.307) * |
| obese | 2.5 | 11.5 | 1.072 (0.787–1.459) | 1.153 (0.990–1.343) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| underweight | 4.6 | 4.7 | 0.735 (0.594–0.910) ** | 0.876 (0.703–1.090) |
| normal | 84.1 | 69.9 | 1 | 1 |
| overweight | 8.8 | 14.9 | 1.129 (0.945–1.349) | 1.011 (0.883–1.158) |
| obese | 2.5 | 10.5 | 1.159 (0.837–1.603) | 0.932 (0.798–1.087) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| underweight | 5 | 4.5 | 0.951 (0.767–1.180) | 0.902 (0.721–1.127) |
| normal | 83.7 | 68.3 | 1 | 1 |
| overweight | 8.6 | 15.2 | 1.057 (0.891–1.254) | 1.087 (0.950–1.244) |
| obese | 2.7 | 12 | 1.241 (0.911–1.690) | 1.253 (1.075–1.460) ** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| underweight | 4.5 | 4.7 | 0.755 (0.610–0.934) ** | 0.962 (0.773–1.197) |
| normal | 83.8 | 68 | 1 | 1 |
| overweight | 9.1 | 15.4 | 1.187 (1.001–1.409) * | 1.122 (0.982–1.283) |
| obese | 2.6 | 11.9 | 1.182 (0.866–1.614) | 1.258 (1.080–1.465) ** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| underweight | 4.8 | 6.1 | 0.847 (0.684–1.047) | 1.759 (1.390–2.225) *** |
| normal | 84.1 | 69.8 | 1 | 1 |
| overweight | 8.6 | 14 | 1.059 (0.891–1.258) | 0.876 (0.766–1.002) |
| obese | 2.5 | 10.1 | 1.117 (0.815–1.531) | 0.846 (0.726–0.985) * |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| underweight | 6.2 | 6.9 | 1.369 (1.106–1.693) ** | 1.826 (1.462–2.279) *** |
| normal | 85.2 | 73.8 | 1 | 1 |
| overweight | 6.5 | 12.2 | 0.638 (0.534–0.761) *** | 0.658 (0.572–0.756) *** |
| obese | 2.1 | 7.1 | 0.798 (0.583–1.093) | 0.472 (0.399–0.559) *** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| underweight | 5.6 | 7.3 | 1.122 (0.871–1.447) | 1.498 (1.180–1.902) *** |
| normal | 83.1 | 76 | 1 | 1 |
| overweight | 8.6 | 10.2 | 1.054 (0.857–1.296) | 0.570 (0.473–0.686 *** |
| obese | 2.7 | 6.5 | 1.221 (0.851–1.752) | 0.484 (0.386–0.607 *** |
* p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001—significant differences between SBW or DBW, the Pearson’s chi-square test or the Wald test (OR values). The bold data are the results of separate analyzes.
Figure 1The results of the analysis of correspondence of eating behaviors in SBW (satisfied with body weight—green) or DBW (dissatisfied with body weight—red) groups (n = 14,044).